AN UPDATE ON
URBAN HARDSHIP
Lisa M. Montiel, Richard P. Nathan, and David J. Wright
August 2004
The
Nelson A.
Rockefeller
Institute
of
Government
he Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government, the public policy research arm of
the State University of New York, was established in 1982 to bring the resources of
the 64-campus SUNY system to bear on public policy issues. The Institute is active
nationally in research and special projects on the role of state governments in American
federalism and the management and finances of both state and local governments in major
areas of domestic public affairs.
T
Copyright Ó 2004 by The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government
Address inquiries to:
David J. Wright
Director
Urban & Metropolitan Studies Program
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government
411 State Street
Albany, New York 12203-1003
Tel.: (518) 443-5014
Fax: (518) 443-5705
E-mail: cadrettc@rockinst.org
Web: http://www.rockinst.org
CONTENTS
I.
Urban Hardship in 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
A.
Most Cities in 2000 have Low or Very Low Levels of Hardship . . . . . . . . 2
B.
Levels of Urban Hardship in 2000 Vary Considerably by Region . . . . . . . 3
C.
The Ten Most-Troubled Cities in 2000 are Spread Across the
Northeast, Midwest, and West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
D.
The Ten Least-Troubled Cities in 2000 Concentrate in the South . . . . . . . 5
II.
Urban Hardship in 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
A.
The Plurality of Central Cities in 1990 had Low Hardship . . . . . . . . . . . 8
B.
Hardship Levels in 1990 Vary Considerably by Region . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
C.
The Ten Most-Troubled Cities in 1990 are Predominately in the
Midwest and Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
D.
The Ten Least-Troubled Cities in 1990 were Concentrated in
the South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
III.
Urban Hardship Over the 1990s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
A.
The 1990s Were Generally Good for Cities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
B.
The Degree and Direction of Change in Hardship Levels Over the
1990s Varies by Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
C.
Cities with the Greatest Increases in Urban Hardship Over the
1990s Concentrate in the South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
D.
Cities with the Greatest Improvement in Urban Hardship Over the
1990s Are in the West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
IV.
Urban Hardship in 1970. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
A.
Most Cities in 1970 had Moderate to High Levels of Hardship . . . . . . . . 20
B.
Urban Hardship in 1970 Varied by Region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
C.
The Ten Most-Troubled Cities in 1970 Concentrated in the Midwest
and South. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
D.
Most Cities with the Lowest Levels of Urban Hardship in 1970 Are
in the West and South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
iii
An Update on Urban Hardship
V.
Changes in Urban Hardship, 1970-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
A.
Hardship Declined in Nearly Three-Quarters of the Cities, 1970-2000 . . . . 25
B.
Hardship Composition of Cities Shows Slight Improvement Decade
by Decade from 1970 to 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
C.
The Degree and Direction of Change in Hardship Levels from
1970-2000 Varies by Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
D.
Cities with the Greatest Increases in Urban Hardship from 1970 to
2000 Concentrate in the Northeast and South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
E.
Cities with the Greatest Improvement in Urban Hardship Between
1970 to 2000 are Found in the Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
VI.
Factors Associated with Hardship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
A.
Static City Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
B.
Metro Population Dispersion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
C.
Residential Segregation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
D.
Older Versus Newer Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
E.
Less Reduction in Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
VII.
A Final Word . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Appendix A: Selected Characteristics of Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Appendix B: Intercity Hardship Scores and Rankings, 1970-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Appendix C: Ranking and Components of Intercity Hardship Index Scores,
1990-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
iv
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
Lisa M. Montiel, Richard P. Nathan, and David J. Wright
FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 1: Prevalence and Degree of Urban Hardship in 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Figure 2: Level and Location of Urban Hardship in 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Figure 3: Composition of Cities in 2000 by Degree of Urban Hardship and Region . . . 4
Figure 4: Cities with Highest and Lowest Hardship in 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Figure 5: Prevalence and Degree of Urban Hardship in 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Figure 6: Level and Location of Urban Hardship in 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Figure 7: Composition of Cities in 1990 by Degree of Hardship and Region. . . . . . . 10
Figure 8: Cities with Highest and Lowest Hardship in 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Figure 9: Change in Urban Hardship Levels — 1990 to 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Figure 10: Change in Hardship from 1990 to 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Figure 11: Change in Urban Hardship — 1990 to 2000 by Region . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Figure 12: Cities with Significant Change in Hardship Rank from 1990 to 2000 . . . . 19
Figure 13: Prevalence and Degree of Urban Hardship in 1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Figure 14: Level and Location of Urban Hardship in 1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Figure 15: Composition of Cities in 1970 by Degree of Hardship and Region . . . . . . 22
Figure 16: Cities with Highest and Lowest Hardship in 1970. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Figure 17: Change in Urban Hardship — 1970 to 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Figure 18: Change in Hardship from 1970 to 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Figure 19: Urban Hardship Levels 1970 to 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Figure 20: Change in Hardship — 1970 to 2000 by Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Figure 21: Cities with Significant Change in Hardship Rank from 1970 to 2000 . . . . 32
Figure 22: Growth Cities have Lower Hardship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Figure 23: Growth Regions have Expanding Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Figure 24: Metro Area Population Concentrations and Hardship in 2000 . . . . . . . 36
Figure 25: Residential Segregation (African American with White
Dissimilarity Index) and Urban Hardship in 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Figure 26: Changes in Residential Segregation (African American with White
Dissimilarity Index) and Urban Hardship, 1990 to 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Figure 27: Older Housing and Urban Hardship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
v
An Update on Urban Hardship
Figure 28: Changes in Violent Crime Rate by Change in Urban Hardship
Levels in the 1990s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Table 1: Cities with Highest Hardship in 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 2: Cities with Lowest Hardship in 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 3: Ten Highest Hardship Cities in 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Table 4: Ten Lowest Hardship Cities in 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 5: Cities Where Intercity Hardship Index Scores Worsened the
Most from 1990 to 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Table 6: Cities Where Hardship Ranking Worsened the Most from 1990 to 2000 . . . . 17
Table 7: Cities Where Intercity Hardship Index Scores Improved the
Most from 1990 to 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Table 8: Cities Where Intercity Hardship Ranking Improved the Most from
1990 to 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Table 9: Ten Highest Hardship Cities in 1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Table 10: Ten Lowest Hardship Cities in 1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Table 11: Cities Where Intercity Hardship Index Scores Worsened the Most
from 1970 to 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Table 12: Rank Order of Highest Hardship Cities, 1970 to 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Table 13: Cities Where Intercity Hardship Ranking Worsened the Most from
1970 to 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Table 14: Cities Where Intercity Hardship Index Scores Improved the Most from
1970 to 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Table 15: Cities Where Intercity Hardship Ranking Improved the Most from 1970
to 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
vi
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
An Update on Urban Hardship
By Lisa M. Montiel, Richard P. Nathan, and David J. Wright
he Presidential campaign has largely overlooked the condition of America’s cities. But with
metropolitan areas home to more than 80 percent of Americans, as attention concentrates on the
economic health and future of the country, it is timely to revisit the state of urban America.
T
Using a technique advanced by Nathan and Adams to assess urban hardship, the Rockefeller
Institute’s Intercity Hardship Index compares the economic condition of American cities relative to
one another and to themselves and one another over time. The comparative analysis includes the
largest cities within the most populated metropolitan areas in the nation, covering a total of 86 cities
in 2000, and providing longer-term trend analysis for a group of 55 cities going back to 1970. 1
The Intercity Hardship Index draws together six key factors:2
v Unemployment, defined as the percent of the civilian population over the age of 16
who were unemployed;
v Dependency, the percentage of the population that are under the age of 18 or over the
age of 64;
v Education, the percentage of the population over the age of 25 who have less than a
high school education;
v Income Level, the per capita income;
v Crowded Housing, measured by the percent of occupied housing units with more than
one person per room; and
v Poverty, the percent of people living below the federal poverty level.
For each city, values on these six factors are compared to a national standard, and they are
given equal weight when combined in a composite index. A higher Intercity Hardship Index score
signifies worse economic conditions.
This paper provides an update on urban hardship conditions in the nation’s most populated
metropolitan areas beginning, in Section I, with national and regional perspectives on Intercity
Hardship as of 2000. Next, in Section II, we look at conditions in 1990, and comment in Section III
about changes in urban hardship levels over the decade of the 1990s. Section IV takes us back to the
Nathan and Adams data on urban hardship in 1970, and Section V examines changes in those
conditions between 1970 and 2000. Our penultimate discussion, in Section VI, analyzes several
factors associated with changes in Intercity Hardship, and Section VII offers a final word on this
research.
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
1
An Update on Urban Hardship
I.
URBAN HARDSHIP IN 2000
A. Most Cities in 2000 have Low or Very Low Levels of Hardship
mages of extensive urban hardship are commonplace in much of the popular media, fueling the
view that high or very high levels of hardship are the norm. But this isn’t the case. Figure 1,
which illustrates levels of hardship among 86 cities in the study based on data from the 2000
Decennial Census of Population and Housing, reports that half the cities in the study have low or
very low levels of hardship. By contrast, only about 15 percent of the cities have high or very high
levels of hardship.
I
Figure 1: Prevalence and Degree of Urban Hardship in 2000
The level of hardship and the location of each of the 86 cities are shown in Figure 2.
2
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
Lisa M. Montiel, Richard P. Nathan, and David J. Wright
Figure 2: Level and Location of Urban Hardship in 2000
B. Levels of Urban Hardship in 2000 Vary Considerably by Region
his national snapshot masks substantial variation in levels of urban hardship by region.
Tv
Urban areas in the South are about twice as likely to have very low levels of urban
hardship and are less likely to have high or very high levels of hardship.
v High levels of urban hardship are more common among large cities in the Northeast.
(It is worth noting that nearly 7 in 10 Northeast cities have moderate rather than a
higher level of hardship.)
v In between these extremes fall cities in the West and Midwest — those cities in the
West more likely than others to have low hardship scores, and those in the Midwest
more likely than others to have low and high hardship scores, and less likely to have
very high, very low, or moderate scores on hardship.
These differing patterns of hardship levels by region are shown in Figure 3.
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
3
An Update on Urban Hardship
Figure 3: Composition of Cities in 2000 by Degree of Urban Hardship and Region
C. The Ten Most-Troubled Cities in 2000 are Spread Across the Northeast,
Midwest, and West
hose cities with the ten highest levels of hardship in 2000 are, in order: Santa Ana, Miami,
Hartford, Newark, Gary, Detroit, Cleveland, Fresno, Los Angeles, and Buffalo. Intercity
Hardship Index scores and regions for these cities are shown in Table 1, below. Three of these
highest-hardship cities are found in each of the Northeast, Midwest, and West regions, while only
one, Miami, is in the South.
T
Table 1: Cities with Highest Hardship in 2000
City
Santa Ana
Miami
Hartford
Newark
Gary
Detroit
Cleveland
Fresno
Los Angeles
Buffalo
4
Region
West
South
Northeast
Northeast
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
West
West
Northeast
2000 Hardship Index Score
73.7
71.6
67.1
66.6
59.4
56.6
55.8
54.4
51.0
50.1
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
Lisa M. Montiel, Richard P. Nathan, and David J. Wright
For Miami, Newark, Gary, Detroit, and Cleveland, high hardship rankings are familiar
territory. Each, as described more fully in Section V, has ranked among the highest hardship cities
for thirty years. Buffalo and Hartford have been close behind, among the fifteen worst-off cities in
the country on Intercity Hardship in 1970, with conditions worsening from then compared to 2000.
Although Miami is in a different region, each of these cities reflect the well-worn pattern of older
urban areas across the rust-belt: land-locked within inflexible boundaries, losing population share
relative to their surrounding metropolitan area, characterized by high levels of residential
segregation, facing considerable challenges in poverty levels as well as limited educational
attainment, and home to low levels of newer housing stock.
Like Miami, Los Angeles is not usually associated with the problems of older cities in the
Northeast and Midwest but it too defies convention. Los Angeles, like the other cities listed above,
has seen most of the growth in the metropolitan area happening outside its relatively static borders.
It has low levels of new housing, but high levels of family poverty and limited educational
attainment among its residents.
The metropolitan areas encompassing Santa Ana and Fresno, respectively, were not
sufficiently populated to have been included in the Nathan and Adams analysis for 1970. Each has
since grown considerably.
Though it is in a rapidly growing, Western county popular enough to be the fictional home of a
hot television series, Santa Ana — the seat of California’s Orange County — displays many of the
same characteristics associated with hardship in the older “rust belt” cities listed above: a central
city that represents a low, possibly shrinking share of population in the metropolitan area; stuck
within inflexible city boundaries; with limited new housing stock; and tough social challenges,
such as having nearly six out of every ten adults over 25 years of age having less than a high-school
education.
Circumstances in Fresno illustrate a different story of Intercity Hardship. Even with highly
elastic city boundaries enabling the city to capture a moderate level of metropolitan area
population, and despite high levels of newer housing, Fresno’s Intercity Hardship score and
ranking have been comparatively high (12th highest in 1990; 8th highest in 2000). This has been the
result of a high level of population dependency — an exceptionally high proportion of youngsters
relative to working-age adults — and rising unemployment.
D. The Ten Least-Troubled Cities in 2000 Concentrate in the South
hose cities with the ten lowest levels of hardship in 2000 are, in order: Seattle, Raleigh, Virginia
Beach, Austin, Little Rock, Charlotte, Greensboro, Columbus, Arlington, and Omaha. Intercity
Hardship Index scores and regions for these cities are shown in Table 2. With the exception of
Seattle in the West and Columbus and Omaha of the Midwest, all of these lowest-hardship cities are
in the South.
T
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
5
An Update on Urban Hardship
Table 2: Cities with Lowest Hardship in 2000
Region
City
2000 Hardship Index Score
Seattle
West
9.2
Raleigh
South
10.9
Virginia Beach
South
15.3
Austin
South
16.1
Little Rock
South
17.1
Charlotte
South
17.4
Greensboro
South
17.5
Columbus
Midwest
18.6
Arlington TX
South
19.2
Omaha
Midwest
19.3
Six of the ten cities (Austin, Arlington, Charlotte, Little Rock, Raleigh, and Virginia Beach) on
this list of lowest-hardship places are in metropolitan areas that did not have enough population in
1970 to make it into the original analysis by Nathan and Adams. This helps to underscore a point
discussed in more detail in later sections of this paper: that growing cities in growth regions of the
country have a strong tendency to have lower levels of Intercity Hardship than older, static or
shrinking cities in the Northeast and Midwest.
The stalwarts on the list of lowest hardship cities are Seattle, Greensboro, and Columbus. Each
has remained among the cities with lowest levels of Intercity Hardship since 1970. They are joined
by Omaha, which fared better on hardship than all but 15 out of the 55 cities in the 1970 study, and
improved to a relative position on Intercity Hardship that was better than all but 9 out of 86 cities in
2000.
Typically, the cities with lowest hardship benefited from having relatively elastic city
boundaries, an ability to capture a moderate share of metropolitan area population, comparatively
high levels of newer housing, and less intense pressures from high rates of racial segregation,
poverty, limited education, and unemployment than other cities.
The ten highest-hardship and ten least-troubled cities are shown on the map below.
6
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
Lisa M. Montiel, Richard P. Nathan, and David J. Wright
Figure 4: Cities with Highest and Lowest Hardship in 2000
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
7
An Update on Urban Hardship
II.
URBAN HARDSHIP IN 1990
A. The Plurality of Central Cities in 1990 had Low Hardship
mong the largest cities in the most-populated metropolitan areas in the United States in 1990,
the most common level of hardship was low. Combined with those categorized as having very
low hardship, these cities comprise half of the 86 cities in the study. Compared to the distribution in
2000 shown above, fewer cities in 1990 are in the least-troubled category and a higher share have
high or very high levels of hardship, shown in Figure 5 below.
A
Figure 5: Prevalence and Degree of Urban Hardship in 1990
The level of hardship in 1990 and the location of each of the 86 cities are shown on the map
below.
8
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
Lisa M. Montiel, Richard P. Nathan, and David J. Wright
Figure 6: Level and Location of Urban Hardship in 1990
B. Hardship Levels in 1990 Vary Considerably by Region
A
s was the case for 2000, urban hardship levels in 1990 can be seen to vary by region.
v Cities in the South were more likely to have very low and low levels of hardship, and
were much less likely to have very high or high levels of hardship, compared to cities
in other regions in 1990.
v The West had the second-most favorable urban conditions in 1990; better than half the
cities in the West had low levels of hardship.
v Six of ten cities in the Northeast are classified as moderate hardship in 1990, twice the
proportion of any other region. Nearly a quarter of Northeastern cities had high or
very high levels of hardship, and none of the large cities in the region had very low
levels of hardship.
v Nearly a third of Midwestern cities had high or very high Intercity Hardship Index
scores in 1990.
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
9
An Update on Urban Hardship
Figure 7: Composition of Cities in 1990 by Degree of Hardship and Region
C. The Ten Most-Troubled Cities in 1990 are Predominately in the Midwest
and Northeast
hose cities with the ten highest levels of hardship in 1990 are, in order: Miami, Newark, Santa
Ana, Detroit, Gary, Hartford, Youngstown, New Orleans, Cleveland, and Chicago. Seven
cities are repeated in this top hardship group in 1990 and 2000: Miami, Newark, Santa Ana, Detroit,
Gary, Hartford, and Cleveland. Intercity Hardship Index scores and regions for these cities are
shown in Table 3. Four of these highest-hardship cities are in the Midwest, three in the Northeast,
two in the South, and one in the West.
T
Table 3: Ten Highest Hardship Cities in 1990
City
10
Region
1990 Hardship Index Score
76.5
Miami
South
Newark
Northeast
74.6
Santa Ana
West
74.6
Detroit
Midwest
69.0
Gary
Midwest
67.1
Hartford
Northeast
62.6
Youngstown
Northeast
56.8
New Orleans
South
56.8
Cleveland
Midwest
56.6
Chicago
Midwest
53.8
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
Lisa M. Montiel, Richard P. Nathan, and David J. Wright
Miami, Newark, Santa Ana and Detroit had the highest hardship scores in 1990. By 2000, all
but Detroit were still in the top four. Santa Ana jumped to number one and Hartford entered the top
four.
Other notable differences from the preceding list of highest-hardship cities in 2000 are the
inclusion here of Youngstown, New Orleans, and Chicago. Although it ranked among those cities
with highest Intercity Hardship scores in 1990, Youngstown reflected considerable improvement in
levels of educational attainment, employment, income, and especially in lower poverty over the
next decade. New Orleans had similar improvement during the 1990s on its intercity index scores
for educational attainment, unemployment, and income, though it’s overall hardship ranking was
an improved but still-high 14th-highest in 2000. The driving forces behind Chicago’s move out of
the bottom ten cities appear to be improvement in levels of educational attainment and poverty,
though its relative position improved only by one rung, to 11th-highest hardship in 2000.
With the exception of New Orleans, each of these cities is characterized by factors associated
with high-hardship, as outlined above and discussed in more detail in Section VI. These factors
include static city boundaries, a low or declining share of metro area population, and limited new
housing.
D. The Ten Least-Troubled Cities in 1990 were Concentrated in the South
hose cities with the ten lowest levels of hardship in 1990 are, in order: Raleigh, Seattle,
Arlington, Virginia Beach, Greensboro, Charlotte, Little Rock, Omaha, Columbus, and Austin.
These same cities comprised the lowest-ten on hardship in 2000, in slightly different order.
Intercity Hardship Index scores and regions for these cities are included in Table 4, below. With the
exception of Seattle in the West and Columbus and Omaha in the Midwest, all of these
lowest-hardship cities are in the South.
T
Table 4: Ten Lowest Hardship Cities in 1990
City
Region
1990 Hardship Index Score
Raleigh
South
6.3
Seattle
West
12.3
Arlington TX
South
12.9
Virginia Beach
South
13.1
Greensboro
South
13.2
Charlotte
South
13.3
Little Rock
South
21.1
Omaha
Midwest
21.7
Columbus
Midwest
22.5
Austin
South
22.7
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
11
An Update on Urban Hardship
The ordering has changed somewhat, but each of these cities were also among the ten lowest
hardship cities in 2000. As outlined above and discussed in more detail in Section VI, these cities
possess several characteristics — flexible boundaries, relatively higher shares of metropolitan area
populations and newer housing — that are associated with lower levels of Intercity Hardship.
The ten highest-hardship and ten least-troubled cities in 1990 are shown in Figure 8.
Figure 8: Cities with Highest and Lowest Hardship in 1990
12
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
Lisa M. Montiel, Richard P. Nathan, and David J. Wright
III. URBAN HARDSHIP OVER THE 1990s
A. The 1990s Were Generally Good for Cities
racking scores on the Intercity Hardship Index over time provides useful perspective.
Comparing measures of hardship in 2000 with those from 1990 shows the following (see
Figure 9 below):
T
v The average hardship score among the 86 central cities improved, from 37.7 in 1990
to 35.0 in 2000.
v Three-fifths of the cities studied are classified as improving or strongly improving
over the 1990s.
v Four-fifths of the cities studied are classified as either stable or improving.
Figure 9: Change in Urban Hardship Levels — 1990 to 2000
The location of each of the 86 cities and their change in level of hardship between 1990 and
2000 are shown on the map below.
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
13
An Update on Urban Hardship
Figure 10: Change in Hardship from 1990 to 2000
B. The Degree and Direction of Change in Hardship Levels Over the 1990s
Varies by Region
A
verage hardship scores declined for each region between 1990 and 2000, although there were
notable differences in hardship levels among the regions.
v Cities in the Midwest improved the most in their average score from 1990-2000,
followed by cities in the West.
v Hardship levels improved in the Northeast over the 1990s, but they improved less and
remained higher in the Northeast than in the other regions.
v Cities in all regions showed improvement or stability on nearly all of the individual
variables comprising the Intercity Hardship Index.
v The exception was crowded housing, where conditions generally worsened. While the
number of residents living in crowded housing conditions tended to increase in all
regions, the West had a significantly higher percentage in both 1990 and 2000. The
Midwest, both in 1990 and 2000, had the lowest levels of crowded housing.
v The proportion of people aged 25 years or more with at least a high school education
improved from 1990 to 2000 for cities in all regions except those in the West, which
had the worst score on education among regions in 1990 and the second worst in 2000.
v Cities in the South continued to have the highest per capita income both in 1990 and
2000, and along with those in the Midwest, showed the most improvement in per
capita income from 1990 to 2000.
14
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
Lisa M. Montiel, Richard P. Nathan, and David J. Wright
v Cities in the Midwest and West experienced significant improvement in the share of
residents living below poverty. The Northeast continued to show the lowest per capita
income and the highest percentage of residents living below poverty.
v Changes in unemployment and share of “dependent population” were not significant.
v For cities in the West, crowded housing is a main factor in their hardship conditions.
In the Northeast, low levels of educational attainment, lower per capita income, and
high incidence of poverty underlie socioeconomic hardship.
These regional differences are illustrated by Figure 11, below.
Figure 11: Change in Urban Hardship— 1990 to 2000 by Region
C. Cities with the Greatest Increases in Urban Hardship Over the 1990s
Concentrate in the South
ost of the cities with the lowest hardship scores in 2000 are Southern cities. However, the
South was also home to cities with the biggest increases in hardship scores from 1990 to
2000, which also tended to be in the West.
M
Two ways of looking at change in hardship levels are presented below. One method looks at
change in hardship relative to a city’s own past, based on a change in its hardship score over time.
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
15
An Update on Urban Hardship
The second method looks at change in hardship both over time and relative to hardship levels in
other cities, based on changes in the rank order of cities on hardship in 2000 and 1990.
First we use both methods to look at cities with the most deterioration in their socioeconomic
condition. Table 5 reports those cities that had the largest proportional increase in their own
hardship score between 1990 and 2000.
Table 5: Cities Where Intercity Hardship Index Scores Worsened the Most from 1990 to 2000
City
Region
1990 Index
2000 Index
Change in Index
1990-2000
Anaheim
West
38.7
46.4
7.7
Honolulu
West
25.7
32.7
7.0
Arlington TX
South
12.9
19.2
6.3
Norfolk
South
33.6
39.8
6.2
Birmingham
South
42.6
48.0
5.5
Houston
South
34.1
39.6
5.4
Raleigh
South
6.3
10.9
4.5
Hartford
Northeast
62.6
67.1
4.5
Milwaukee
Midwest
44.7
49.1
4.4
Syracuse
Northeast
37.6
42.0
4.4
Greensboro
South
13.2
17.5
4.4
The largest increases in hardship score from 1990 to 2000 were in Anaheim, Honolulu,
Arlington (TX), Norfolk and Birmingham. All of these are smaller cities, and there is a tendency for
the most distressed cities to be the smaller cities.
Increases were largest among cities in the South and West. Six of the eleven cities with the
largest increases in hardship scores are in the South. Two each are in the West and Northeast, while
one is in the Midwest.
This list notably includes two cities that have, relatively speaking, very low levels of urban
hardship. Indeed, Raleigh and Greensboro ranked among the ten cities with lowest hardship scores
in both 1990 and 2000, with Raleigh the overall lowest in 1990 and second lowest in 2000. And yet,
compared to where they were, both Raleigh and Greensboro experienced substantial increases in
their levels of urban hardship over the 1990s.
A second way of looking at change over time is to look at relative hardship; that is, by
comparing city rankings on urban hardship in 1990 and 2000. Cities where change in hardship
ranking was the most negative are shown in Table 6, below (twelve rather than ten cities are shown
because of ties).
The cities ranking with the highest levels of urban hardship in 1990 generally remained in the
highest ten in 2000 (with the noted exceptions of Youngstown, New Orleans and Chicago which
16
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
Lisa M. Montiel, Richard P. Nathan, and David J. Wright
improved their conditions and Fresno, Los Angeles and Buffalo, which joined the list with highest
hardship). Twelve cities significantly worsened, moving 10 or more places higher in hardship
ranking from 1990-2000. Honolulu had the most negative change, with a move of 26 places,
followed by Anaheim with a move of nineteen and Norfolk with eighteen places. Allentown,
Birmingham and Houston each had a relative worsening in their hardship ranking of 15 places. The
other cities that significantly worsened in rank are Buffalo, Milwaukee, Dallas, Newport News,
Richmond, and Syracuse.
Table 6: Cities Where Intercity Hardship Ranking Worsened the Most from 1990 to 2000
City
Region
1990 Rank
2000 Rank
Change in Rank
1990-2000
Honolulu
West
71
45
26
Anaheim
West
35
16
19
Norfolk
South
48
30
18
Birmingham
South
28
13
15
Houston
South
47
32
15
Allentown
Northeast
50
35
15
Buffalo
Northeast
22
10
12
Milwaukee
Midwest
24
12
12
Syracuse
Northeast
39
28
11
Dallas
South
45
34
11
Richmond
South
55
44
11
Newport News
South
61
50
11
D. Cities with the Greatest Improvement in Urban Hardship Over the 1990s
Are in the West
ext, we use both methods — change in score and change in ranking — to look at cities that
improved the most on hardship over the 1990s. Cities with the largest decreases in hardship
scores from 1990 to 2000 are: San Antonio, San Francisco, Youngstown, Detroit, Tucson, New
Orleans, Mesa, Phoenix, St. Louis, and Oakland (Table 7). The largest decreases come from the
South, West and Midwest regions. The West had the most cities with significant improvement,
followed by the Midwest and the South. No city in the Northeast made this list.
N
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
17
An Update on Urban Hardship
Table 7: Cities Where Intercity Hardship Index Scores Improved the Most from 1990 to 2000
City
Region
1990 Index
2000 Index
Change in Index
1990-2000
San Antonio
South
48.5
33.9
-14.6
San Francisco
West
33.4
20.2
-13.1
Youngstown
Midwest
56.8
44.2
-12.6
Detroit
Midwest
69.0
56.6
-12.4
Tucson
West
40.0
28.3
-11.7
New Orleans
South
56.8
45.9
-10.9
Mesa
West
30.5
19.8
-10.7
Phoenix
West
33.5
24.0
-9.5
St. Louis
Midwest
52.9
44.5
-8.4
Oakland
West
50.9
42.6
-8.3
Thirty-eight of the 86 cities improved their rank from 1990-2000, indicating a relative reduction in
urban hardship in these places compared to the others in the study. Twelve cities moved down 11 or
more places from 1990-2000, indicating significant improvement, and are listed in Table 8. San
Francisco and Tucson lead the way, improving 23 places in ranking, followed by San Antonio (20
places), Cincinnati and Youngstown at 17 places, Louisville and Mesa at 16, Phoenix (15), Oakland,
(12) and Akron, Springfield, and St. Louis, which improved in rank by 11 places.
Table 8: Cities Where Intercity Hardship Ranking Improved the Most from 1990 to 2000
City
18
Region
1990 Rank
2000 Rank
Change in Rank
1990-2000
Tucson
West
33
56
-23
San Francisco
West
51
74
-23
San Antonio
South
20
40
-20
Youngstown
Midwest
7
24
-17
Cincinnati
Midwest
31
48
-17
Louisville
South
36
52
-16
Mesa
West
60
76
-16
Phoenix
West
49
64
-15
Oakland
West
15
27
-12
St. Louis
Midwest
11
22
-11
Springfield
Northeast
14
25
-11
Akron
Midwest
40
51
-11
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
Lisa M. Montiel, Richard P. Nathan, and David J. Wright
About half of the cities in each region improved in hardship rank. Cities with the most
significant improvement in hardship rank were most often found in the West (5 of 12), Midwest (4
of 12), the South (2 of 12), followed by the Northeast (1 of 12).
The location of the cities with most significant change in hardship rank between 1990 and 2000
are shown on the map below.
Figure 12: Cities with Significant Change in Hardship Rank from 1990 to 2000
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
19
An Update on Urban Hardship
IV. URBAN HARDSHIP IN 19703
n combination with Nathan and Adams’ original analysis, this study provides a thirty year
overview on the socioeconomic well being of the largest cities in the most populated
metropolitan regions of the United States. In this section, we analyze the shares of cities
experiencing improvement, stability or decline over this extended period, compare the composition
of cities by levels of hardship for each of the four decades, and explore regional variation in both.
We later examine the rankings of the original fifty-five cities for 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000. Many
of the same cities have remained in socioeconomic hardship — half of the cities with the worst
socioeconomic hardship ranking have remained so for the entire period — and many have
successfully improved their conditions over this thirty-year span. Most of the cities among the
lowest hardship had difficult years between 1970 and 1990. The 1990s, however, were a period of
stability for the cities with the best rankings.
I
A. Most Cities in 1970 had Moderate to High Levels of Hardship
he most common level of hardship among the 55 cities included in the original analysis by
Nathan and Adams for 1970 was low. However, unlike 2000 and 1990, the combination of low
and very low hardship cities in 1970 encompasses less than half of the cities in the study. Compared
to the distribution in 2000 and 1990 shown above, more cities in 1970 have very low hardship, but
fewer have low hardship and a higher share have high or very high levels of hardship, shown in
Figure 13 below.
T
Figure 13: Prevalence and Degree of Urban Hardship in 1970
40
36.4
35
32.7
30
Percentage
25
20
15
12.7
12.7
10
5.5
5
0
Very Low
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
NOTE: Categories are based on standard deviations from the median hardship score of all fifty-five cities. Thus, "very low" includes hardship scores from 19.1 to 32.39,
"low" are scores from 32.4 to 45.69, "moderate" are from 45.7 to 58.99, "high" are from 59.0 to 72.29, and "very high" have scores over 72.3 (more than two standard
deviations from the median).
20
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
Lisa M. Montiel, Richard P. Nathan, and David J. Wright
The level of hardship in 1970 and the location of each of the 55 cities are shown on the map
below.
Figure 14: Level and Location of Urban Hardship in 1970
B. Urban Hardship in 1970 Varied by Region
A
s was the case for 2000 and 1990, substantial variation in urban hardship levels in 1970 varied
by region.
v The West fared best among the four regions in 1970. Nearly all — 90 percent — of the
cities in the West had very low or low levels of hardship in 1970, and no cities in the
study from that region had high or very high hardship in 1970. This pattern is
strikingly different from what was observed in the West for 1990 and 2000.
v Cities in the South and the Midwest had similar patterns on hardship, with those in the
South having a slightly higher tendency than those in the Midwest to concentrate
toward the extremes — either very high or very low hardship — and in the moderate
category, and less in the low and high hardship categories.
v Nearly seven-in-ten cities in the Northeast had moderate hardship in 1970, at least
twice the proportion of any other region. An equal share of cities in the Northeast had
very high and very low levels of hardship. Nearly a quarter of those cities studied in
the Northeast had low or very low hardship in 1970, compared to a little more than 15
percent of such cities in 1990 and to 7.7 percent of such cities in 2000.
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
21
An Update on Urban Hardship
Figure 15: Composition of Cities in 1970 by Degree of Hardship and Region
C. The Ten Most-Troubled Cities in 1970 Concentrated in the Midwest and
South
hose cities with the ten highest levels of hardship in 1970 are, in order: Newark, St. Louis,
New Orleans, Gary, Miami, Baltimore, Youngstown, Birmingham, Cleveland, and
Detroit.
T
In 1990 and 2000, the cities with highest hardship were distributed nearly evenly among the
Northeast, Midwest and South. But back in 1970, by contrast, half of the cities with the most
substantial levels of urban hardship were found in the Midwest, and the South had a nearly
equally high portion. Newark, with the highest level of hardship among the 55 cities studied in
1970, was the only place among the highest-hardship cities from the Northeast. None were from
the West.
22
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
Lisa M. Montiel, Richard P. Nathan, and David J. Wright
Table 9: Ten Highest Hardship Cities in 1970
City
Region
1970 Hardship Index Score
Newark
Northeast
86.9
St. Louis
Midwest
77.2
New Orleans
South
73.9
Gary
Midwest
70.3
Miami
South
61.9
Baltimore
South
61.9
Youngstown
Midwest
61.6
Birmingham
South
61.6
Cleveland
Midwest
61.4
Detroit
Midwest
59.0
D. Most Cities with the Lowest Levels of Urban Hardship in 1970 Are in the
West and South
hose cities with the ten lowest levels of hardship in 1970 are, in order: Fort Lauderdale, Seattle,
Greensboro, San Francisco, Allentown, Denver, Minneapolis, San Diego, Dallas, and Columbus.
Intercity Hardship Index scores and regions for these cities are included in Table 10, below. Four of
these ten cities are in the West, three in the South, two in the Midwest, and one in the Northeast.
T
Table 10: Ten Lowest Hardship Cities in 1970
City
Region
1970 Hardship Index Score
Fort Lauderdale
South
23.0
Seattle
West
28.1
Greensboro
South
28.4
San Francisco
West
28.5
Allentown
Northeast
29.2
Denver
West
29.7
Minneapolis
Midwest
29.8
San Diego
West
32.8
Dallas
South
33.1
Columbus
Midwest
34.8
The ten highest-hardship and ten least-troubled cities in 1970 are shown on the map below.
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
23
An Update on Urban Hardship
Figure 16: Cities with Highest and Lowest Hardship in 1970
24
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
Lisa M. Montiel, Richard P. Nathan, and David J. Wright
V.
CHANGES IN URBAN HARDSHIP, 1970-2000 4
A. Hardship Declined in Nearly Three-Quarters of the Cities, 1970-2000
etween 1970 and 2000, levels of hardship improved strongly for the plurality of cities in the
study, which encompass the largest cities in the most-populated metropolitan areas in the
country. As shown in Figure 17:
B
v Nearly three quarters — 74.6 percent — of the cities had a decline in hardship score
from 1970 to 2000 of 4 percent or more.
v More than 38 percent of cities strongly improved on hardship levels from 1970 to
2000 (meaning they had a reduction in hardship score of 20 percent or more).
v Another 36.4 percent improved on hardship over this period, meaning they had a
reduction in hardship score of between 4 percent and 20 percent.
v Fewer than one in five — 18.2 percent — of cities in the study declined from 1970 to
2000, defined as having an increase in hardship score of 4 percent or greater.
Figure 17: Change in Urban Hardship — 1970 to 2000
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
25
An Update on Urban Hardship
The location of each of the 55 cities and their change in level of hardship between 1970 and
2000 are shown on the map below.
Figure 18: Change in Hardship from 1970 to 2000
B. Hardship Composition of Cities Shows Slight Improvement Decade by
Decade from 1970 to 2000
igure 19 presents the total distribution of cities by their levels of hardship for each decade, 1970
to 2000.
F
v The proportion of cities with high or very high levels of hardship generally declines
from 1970 to 2000, except in 1980, which exceeded the share of cities with worse
hardship in all other years.
v The proportion of cities with low or very low hardship increases somewhat, from 49
percent in 1970 and 1980 to 50 percent in 1990 and 2000.
26
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
Lisa M. Montiel, Richard P. Nathan, and David J. Wright
Figure 19: Urban Hardship Levels 1970 to 2000
C. The Degree and Direction of Change in Hardship Levels from 1970-2000
Varies by Region
igure 20 reports the regional breakdown on the share of cities that strongly declined, declined,
were stable, improved, or improved strongly from 1970 to 2000. The picture varied
considerably by region.
F
v Cities in the Midwest generally marked a significant level of improvement in hardship
conditions from 1970 to 2000. Better than half of the cities in the region — 52.9 percent
— registered strong improvement in their hardship score, meaning a decline of 20
percent or more, and another three-in-ten (29.4 percent) had improvement in hardship
from 1970 to 2000. About one in eight Midwestern cities had stable levels of hardship,
while about 6 percent declined, experiencing an increase in hardship levels of between 4
and 20 percent. The Midwest was the only one of the four regions that did not have a city
in the study that declined strongly over the thirty-year period reviewed.
v Nine-in-ten cities in the West either improved or improved strongly from 1970 to
2000. However, the remaining 10 percent of cities from the region declined strongly.
v Nearly half the cities from the South also had strong improvement in hardship levels
from 1970 to 2000 (46.7 percent). But, the region had a bipolar pattern: while the
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
27
An Update on Urban Hardship
strong majority of cities in the South either improved or improved strongly, more than
a quarter declined or declined strongly. The South had the highest share of cities
experiencing significant increases in hardship levels. Like the West, no cities in the
region were categorized as stable.
v The Northeast had the least favorable pattern of change among the four regions. In
good news, there too did the majority of cities show improvement in hardship scores
between 1970 and 2000, but this majority was slim compared to other regions. The
Northeast had, by far, the smallest share among the regions of cities showing strong
improvement in hardship — 7.7 percent in the Northeast, compared with the
next-lowest being the West’s 40 percent. A markedly higher share of Northeastern
cities was stable compared to other regions. While a much higher share of
Northeastern cities than those in other regions had some or strong decline, this still
amounted to about three-in-ten cities — meaning almost 70 percent of the largest
cities in the most populated parts of the Northeast were stable or improved from 1970
to 2000.
Figure 20: Change in Hardship — 1970 to 2000 by Region
28
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
Lisa M. Montiel, Richard P. Nathan, and David J. Wright
D. Cities with the Greatest Increases in Urban Hardship from 1970 to 2000
Concentrate in the Northeast and South
e return to the two methods used above to examine increases in hardship at the city level over
time. The first method looks at change in hardship relative to a city’s own past, by calculating
a change in hardship score over time. The second method looks at change in hardship both over
time and relative to hardship levels in other cities, based on changes in hardship ranking in 1970
and 2000.
W
Table 11 reports those cities that had the largest proportional increase in their own hardship
score between 1970 and 2000. Cities with the largest increase in their level of hardship are, in order:
Los Angeles, Miami, Hartford, Dallas, Allentown, Milwaukee, Houston, New York, Fort
Lauderdale, and Syracuse. Four of these ten cities are in the Northeast, and an equal number are in
the South. The West has one city among those most troubled — Los Angeles, ranked worst overall
— as does the Midwest.
Table 11: Cities Where Intercity Hardship Index Scores Worsened the Most from 1970 to 2000
City
Region
1970 Index
2000 Index
Change in Index
1970-2000
Los Angeles
West
38.4
61.0
22.6
Miami
South
61.9
83.5
21.6
Hartford
Northeast
56.5
73.1
16.6
Dallas
South
33.1
44.7
11.6
Allentown
Northeast
29.2
39.1
9.9
Milwaukee
Midwest
43.8
51.6
7.8
Houston
South
37.8
45.5
7.7
New York
Northeast
45.7
51.3
5.6
Fort Lauderdale
South
23.0
27.1
4.1
Syracuse
Northeast
41.4
43.4
2.0
Table 12 presents the ten cities ranking with the highest levels of hardship in 1970, and shows
the ranking of these cities on hardship in each of 1980, 1990, and 2000. Five central cities —
Newark, Gary, Miami, Cleveland and Detroit — remained in the highest ten cities on hardship for
this thirty-year time span indicating continuous socioeconomic hardship. St. Louis steadily
improved its socioeconomic hardship conditions to move from a rank of “2” in 1970 to a rank of
“19” in 2000. Baltimore has also steadily improved its ranking through the years.
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
29
An Update on Urban Hardship
Table 12: Rank Order of Highest Hardship Cities, 1970 to 2000
Ranks
City
Newark
Region
Northeast
1970
1
1980
1
1990
2
2000
2
St. Louis
Midwest
2
7
10
19
New Orleans
South
3
15
6
16
Gary
Midwest
4
2
4
4
Miami
South
5
6
1
1
Baltimore
South
6
9
15
17
Youngstown
Midwest
7
11
7
22
Birmingham
South
8
12
23
13
Cleveland
Midwest
9
8
8
7
Detroit
Midwest
10
3
3
6
Those cities with the most negative change in rank are shown in Table 13, below. Ten cities
significantly worsened, moving 10 places or more in higher hardship ranking from 1970-2000. Los
Angeles had the most negative change in its ranking on hardship, with a move of 35 places,
followed by Dallas with a move of 24 and Milwaukee with 23 places. Allentown and Houston each
had a relative decline in their hardship ranking of 21 places. The other cities that significantly
worsened in rank are New York, Fort Lauderdale, Chicago, Hartford, and Syracuse.
Four of the ten cities with most negative change in rank are in the Northeast. Three are found in
the South. Two are from the Midwest, while one is from the West.
Los Angeles experienced most of its relative decline in the 1980s. Both Dallas and Houston
continued to decline from 1980-2000. Milwaukee and New York had progressive increases in
hardship, joining the most-troubled-ten in 2000.
Table 13: Cities Where Intercity Hardship Ranking Worsened the Most from 1970 to 2000
City
Region
Los Angeles
Dallas
Milwaukee
Houston
Allentown
New York
Fort Lauderdale
Chicago
Hartford
Syracuse
30
West
South
Midwest
South
Northeast
Northeast
South
Midwest
Northeast
Northeast
1970 Rank
2000 Rank
40
47
32
42
51
28
55
22
14
34
5
23
9
21
30
10
43
11
3
24
Change in Rank
1970-2000
35
24
23
21
21
18
12
11
11
10
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
Lisa M. Montiel, Richard P. Nathan, and David J. Wright
E. Cities with the Greatest Improvement in Urban Hardship Between 1970
and 2000 Are Found in the Midwest
able 14 reports the ten cities with the most significant improvement in hardship score between
1970 and 2000. Cities with the largest decrease in their hardship score are, in order: St. Louis,
New Orleans, Louisville, Cincinnati, Seattle, Grand Rapids, Indianapolis, Columbus, Youngstown,
and Omaha.
T
The Midwest region dominates as the location for most significantly improved cities over the
thirty-year period. Seven of the top ten cities are in the Midwest.
Table 14: Cities Where Intercity Hardship Index Scores Improved the Most from 1970 to 2000
City
Region
1970 Index
2000 Index
Change in Index
1970-2000
St. Louis
Midwest
77.2
46.9
-30.3
New Orleans
South
73.9
48.8
-25.1
Louisville
South
56.6
32.0
-24.6
Cincinnati
Midwest
54.1
33.3
-20.8
Seattle
West
28.1
9.1
-19.0
Grand Rapids
Midwest
50.1
32.2
-17.9
Indianapolis
Midwest
40.4
22.7
-17.7
Columbus
Midwest
34.8
18.5
-16.3
Youngstown
Midwest
61.6
45.3
-16.3
Omaha
Midwest
35.0
19.1
-15.9
Table 15 reports those ten cities with the most significant improvement in hardship ranking
between 1970 and 2000. Each of the cities improved in comparison with others in the study by 11 or
more positions over the 30 years. As shown, the most improved city was Louisville, Kentucky,
which improved in hardship rank by 26 positions from 1970 to 2000. The second most improved
city was Cincinnati, which improved its hardship ranking by 21 positions from 1970 to 2000. St.
Louis and Grand Rapids tied for third-best, improving in hardship rank by 17 positions from 1970
to 2000. Rounding out the list of most-improved cities in hardship rankings between 1970 and 2000
are Youngstown (15 positions), Indianapolis (14 positions), New Orleans and Tampa (at 13
positions), as well as Baltimore and Pittsburgh (each improving by 11 positions).
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
31
An Update on Urban Hardship
Table 15: Cities Where Intercity Hardship Ranking Improved the Most from 1970 to 2000
City
Region
1970 Rank
2000 Rank
Change in Rank
1970-2000
Louisville
South
13
39
-26
Cincinnati
Midwest
15
36
-21
St. Louis
Midwest
2
19
-17
Grand Rapids
Midwest
21
38
-17
Youngstown
Midwest
7
22
-15
Indianapolis
Midwest
37
51
-14
New Orleans
South
3
16
-13
Tampa
South
20
33
-13
Baltimore
South
6
17
-11
Pittsburgh
Northeast
26
37
-11
Based on a comparison of changes in rankings, the Midwest again emerges as the region with
most improvement in hardship conditions from 1970 to 2000. Five of the ten cities with most
improvement in their hardship ranking are in the Midwest. The South is close behind, contributing
four cities to the top-ten. Pittsburgh is the lone city from the Northeast to make this list. No Western
city is among the top-ten on improved hardship rank 1970-2000.
The location of the cities with most significant change in hardship rank between 1970 and 2000
are shown on the map below.
Figure 21: Cities with Significant Change in Hardship Rank from 1970 to 2000
32
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
Lisa M. Montiel, Richard P. Nathan, and David J. Wright
VI. FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH HARDSHIP
he preceding sections have described patterns of variation in urban hardship in cities across the
nation and over time. But what factors are associated with these patterns? Why do certain cities
and regions have worse conditions of urban hardship than do others?
T
Among the number of items tested, several stand out, while others have a somewhat lesser
though observable degree of association with hardship. These include the elasticity of city
boundaries over time, concentration of the metro area population within rather than outside central
cities, and the proportion of old vs. new housing. Other aspects examined included the age and
population size of cities, residential segregation, and the extent of reported violent crime.
A. Static City Boundaries
sizeable literature has grown around the idea that cities with flexible boundaries, those able to
expand over time to capture growth on their periphery, tend to fare better than others that are
locked in and static.5 Our findings on the Intercity Hardship Index are consistent with this idea of
the advantage of city elasticity.
A
Figure 22, below, illustrates this relationship between city land area and hardship. We used
percentage change in the land area of cities from 1970 to 2000 as a measure of their boundary
elasticity. Cities are categorized as static if change in their land area was less than 10 percent, slow
growth if their land area increased by 10.0 percent to 49.9 percent, moderate growth if their land
area increased by 50.0 percent to 99.9 percent, and high growth if their change in land area was over
100 percent from 1970 to 2000.
v There is a statistically significant, negative relationship between city elasticity and
hardship.
v Cities that have expansive boundaries, and thereby grow in city land area from 1970 to
2000, have a greater tendency to show improvement in Intercity Hardship Score. 6
v Cities with static, inflexible boundaries tend to have worsening hardship conditions
from 1970 to 2000.
Striking patterns emerge in looking at city elasticity by region, shown in Figure 23.
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
33
An Update on Urban Hardship
Figure 22: Growth Cities have Lower Hardship
v Every city studied in the Northeast, a region populated by long-established cities
typically surrounded by incorporated suburban towns with firm boundaries, is
categorized as static, having a change in land area over the thirty years of less than 10
percent. The Northeast as a region fared worst on increasing hardship over the three
decades from 1970 to 2000.
v More than three-fifths of the cities in the Midwest had limited or no growth in their
city boundaries from 1970 to 2000.
v Considerably greater shares of cities in the growth regions of the South and West had
expansive city boundaries. Better than half the cities in the West had moderate or high
growth from 1970 to 2000. Only a third of the cities in the South had static boundaries
over this period. In both, high growth cities — those doubling or more in size over the
30 years — represented about three-in-ten of those studied. Both regions fared
generally better than the Midwest and Northeast on Intercity Hardship.
34
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
Lisa M. Montiel, Richard P. Nathan, and David J. Wright
Figure 23: Growth Regions have Expanding Cities
B. Metro Population Dispersion
A
related measure looks at the share of population in a metropolitan region that resides within the
central city:
v There is a statistically significant, inverse relationship between metro population
concentration and Intercity Hardship Index score.
v Cities representing a higher proportion of the total population of the metropolitan area
are associated with a lower level of urban hardship in 2000.
v As the percentage of metro population living in the central city increases, Intercity
Hardship Score decreases.7
These results, illustrated by Figure 24, indicate that cities with less separation between their
residents and surrounding suburban populations — those able to incorporate higher shares of the
total population from the metropolitan area within the central city itself — have less socioeconomic
hardship than do places where higher shares of the people in the metropolitan area live outside the
city’s boundaries.
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
35
An Update on Urban Hardship
Figure 24: Metro Area Population Concentrations and Hardship in 2000
Central City Percentage of P/MSA Population
100
90
15.2
20.0
13.3
11.1
80
70
60
40.0
45.5
40.0
55.6
High (2)
Moderate
50
100.0
Low
40
30
20
40.0
39.4
46.7
33.3
10
0
Very Low
(1)
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
Degree of Urban Hardship
NOTES: 1. Categories are based on standard deviations from the median hardship score of all eighty-six cities. Thus, "very low" includes hardship scores
from 9.2 to 19.39, "low" are scores from 19.4 to 33.19, "moderate" are from 33.2 to 46.99, "high" are from 47.0 to 60.8, and "very high" have scores over 60.8
(more than two standard deviations from the median).
2. Central City Population as percent of P/MSA: "low" are less than 25 percent; "moderate" are 25 to 50 percent; and "high" is over 50 percent.
C. Residential Segregation
esidential segregation by race has been posited as a leading cause of inner-city poverty, and is
the topic of an extensive literature built on such foundational work as Douglas Massey and
Nancy Denton’s American Apartheid. Relationships between racial composition and spatial
concentrations of poverty, limited educational and employment opportunities, and the like, are
depressingly well-established.
R
Figure 25 illustrates the relationship we found between residential segregation — measured by
the Index of Dissimilarity, a gauge of the evenness with which African Americans and Whites are
spread across each of our study cities — and Intercity Hardship Index scores for 2000.
v There is a statistically significant positive relationship between degree of urban
hardship and degree of African American with White dissimilarity in 2000. In short,
cities with higher levels of urban hardship tend to have higher levels of residential
segregation.
v About one in ten of those cities categorized as having very low levels of urban
hardship in 2000 — and about three in ten of those with low levels — have high levels
of residential segregation, compared to three-quarters or more of those cities with high
or very high levels of hardship.8
We also found a statistically significant positive relationship between Intercity Hardship Index
scores and African American with White dissimilarity index scores for 1990.9
36
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
Lisa M. Montiel, Richard P. Nathan, and David J. Wright
Figure 25: Residential Segregation (African American with White Dissimilarity Index)
and Urban Hardship in 2000
Percentage of Cities by Degree of Dissimilarity
100%
10.0
90%
30.3
80%
56.7
70%
60%
77.8
75.0
22.2
25.0
High
Very High
High (2)
Moderate
Low
50%
90.0
40%
63.6
30%
40.0
20%
10%
0%
Very Low (1)
6.1
3.3
Low
Moderate
Degree of Urban Hardship in 2000
NOTE: 1. Categories for degree of urban hardship are based on standard deviations from the median hardship score of all eighty-six cities. Thus, "very low" includes
hardship scores from 9.2 to 19.39, "low" are scores from 19.4 to 33.19, "moderate" are from 33.2 to 46.99, "high" are from 47.0 to 60.8, and "very high" have scores
over 60.8 (more than two standard deviations from the median).
2. Degree of residential segregation is measured by the Index of Dissimilarity, a statistic that measures the evenness or unevenness with which African Americans and
Whites are distributed across census tracts comprising each of the cities in the study. Cities are categorized as “low” if their African American with white dissimilarity
index is under 30.0, “moderate” if it is between 30.0 and 59.9, and “high” if it is over 60.0. Indices are drawn from the Lewis Mumford Center of the University at Albany,
State University of New York; data can be found at http://mumford1.dyndns.org/cen2000/WholePop/WPsegdata.htm.
Figure 26, drawing from data regarding racial segregation and urban hardship in 1990 and
2000, serves to illustrate two significant findings:
v Though racial segregation in American cities remains all too high, there was notable
improvement among the study cities over the decade of the 1990s — measured by
lowered African American with White dissimilarity scores.
l
Over 80 percent of the cities had a dissimilarity index score that decreased from
1990 to 2000.
l
The average dissimilarity index score for the 86 cities was 61.5 in 1990, and by
2000 it had improved to 57.0.
v Lower levels of racial segregation are associated with lower levels of urban hardship:
cities showing improvement in their hardship index scores from 1990 to 2000 tended
to have considerably larger reduction in their levels of racial segregation than cities
that declined over the 1990s.
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
37
An Update on Urban Hardship
Figure 26: Changes in Residential Segregation (African American with
White Dissimilarity Index) and Urban Hardship, 1990 to 2000
Average Change in Dissimilarity Index (2)
Strongly Declining (1)
0
Declining
Stable
Improving
Strongly Improving
-0.5
-1
-2
-3.8
-4.3
-4.9
-5.3
-3
-4
-5
-6
Change in Urban Hardship Levels - 1990 to 2000
NOTE: 1. Categories for change in urban harship levels from 1990 to 2000 are based on the percent change in the hardship indices for 1990 and 2000. Cities are categorized as
"strongly declining" if their percent change increases by more than 20%, "declining" if the percent change increases by 4.0% to 19.9%, "stable" if the percent change is between an
increase of 3.9% and a decrease of 3.9%, "improving" if the percent change decreases by 4.0% to 19.9%, and "strongly improving" if the percent change decreases by more than
20%.
2.Degree of residential segregation is measured by the Index of Dissimilarity, a statistic that measures the evenness or unevenness with which African Americans and Whites are
distributed across census tracts comprising each of the cities in the study. Indices are drawn from the Lewis Mumford Center of the University at Albany, State University of New
York; data can be found at http://mumford1.dyndns.org/cen2000/WholePop/WPsegdata.htm.
D. Older Versus Newer Housing
e expected the proportions of old and new homes within a city’s housing stock to relate to
urban hardship conditions for several reasons. Older buildings would likely be more
prevalent in cities that were themselves older and more static. One would expect newer buildings to
prevail in high-growth areas. Cities with lower rates of home building — those with relatively
higher shares of older to newer buildings — might also be expected to have higher levels of
crowded housing, which was a defining factor in the Intercity Hardship Index.
W
Older housing was defined as units built before 1940. Newer housing was defined as units built
after 1990. Each was measured as a percentage of all housing units in each city. For 2000, we found
that (Figure 27):10
v Age of housing has a statistically significant relationship to hardship.
v Higher shares of older housing is associated with higher levels of socioeconomic
hardship.11 Low percentages of older housing are associated with lower levels of
hardship. This is to say, cities with higher shares of their housing built before 1940
have a significantly greater tendency to have higher levels of hardship than cities with
lower shares of older housing, which tend to have lower levels of hardship.
38
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
Lisa M. Montiel, Richard P. Nathan, and David J. Wright
v By contrast, a higher share of newer housing is significantly and negatively associated
with socioeconomic hardship.12 Cities with a higher proportion of housing built after
1990 have a significantly greater tendency to have lower levels of hardship than do
cities that have comparatively less new housing.
Figure 27: Older Housing and Urban Hardship
E. Less Reduction in Crime
or the typical resident of a major city during the 1970s, 1980s, and early 1990s, falling rates of
violent crime might have been at best a distant dream. It is striking — and strongly counter to
the view of cities that too often still prevails in the media — that in our examination of changes in
reported violent crime from 1990 to 2000 for the 86 cities in the study, nearly 90 percent differed
only in degree of reduction in such crime.
F
When grouped according to degree of change in hardship levels between 1990 and 2000, each
category — from those cities with deterioration in socioeconomic conditions and greater hardship,
to those showing stability and improvement in hardship conditions — showed an average reduction
in levels of violent crime.
Moreover, the degree of average reduction in violent crime appeared to follow improvement in
hardship. The group of cities with strong deterioration in socioeconomic conditions had less of an
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
39
Lisa M. Montiel, Richard P. Nathan, and David J. Wright
average decline in reported violent crime than did the group of cities with less decline; which as a
group had less of an average reduction in reported violent crime than the group of cities with stable
hardship conditions; which had, in turn, less of an average reduction in reported violent crime than
the group of cities with improved hardship conditions over the 1990s. The exception was the group
of cities with the greatest improvement in hardship over this period, which had a somewhat lower
average reduction than cities categorized as stable or improving in hardship over the 1990s (Figure
28).
Figure 28: Changes in Violent Crime Rate by Change in Urban Hardship Levels in the 1990s
Strongly Declining (1)
Declining
Stable
Improving
Strongly Improving
0
Average Change in Violent Crime Rate (2)
-20
-40
-71.9
-87.3
-104.2
-60
-80
-146.6
-173.5
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180
-200
Change in Urban Hardship Levels - 1990 to 2000
NOTE: 1. Categories for change in urban harship levels from 1990 to 2000 are based on the percent change in the hardship indices for 1990 and 2000. Cities are categorized as
"strongly declining" if their percent change increases by more than 20%, "declining" if the percent change increases by 4.0% to 19.9%, "stable" if the percent change is between an
increase of 3.9% and a decrease of 3.9%, "improving" if the percent change decreases by 4.0% to 19.9%, and "strongly improving" if the percent change decreases by more than 20%.
2. Crime data was obtained from the Department of Housing and Urban Development's State of the Cities Data Systems found online at http://socds.huduser.org.
Other characteristics of cities that we explored included their age and population size, as well
as the extent of change in population over time. We did find that those cities with very high levels of
urban hardship in 2000 tend to fall among smaller cities — those with populations under 250,000,
or between 250,000 and 500,000, while none are found among the larger cities. The largest cities —
those with one million or more residents in 2000 — tended to have moderate or low levels of
hardship. But beyond this, no linear or statistically significant relationship was found between the
strength and direction of change in city hardship from 1970 to 2000 and the age of cities, the
population size of cities, or the extent of population growth among the cities studied.
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
40
An Update on Urban Hardship
VII. A FINAL WORD
he cities at each end of the Intercity Hardship Index, the most- and least-troubled, have largely
remained there for over thirty years. Factors contributing to socioeconomic hardship are
complex and cities with the most severe hardship have had great difficulty overcoming these
conditions. Older, larger cities have in a number of cases been making notable improvements on
several of the key elements comprising the Index. Several among the smaller cities, by contrast, are
among those more negatively affected. Factors such as population growth, residential segregation,
lack of jobs or transportation to jobs, stagnant residential construction/renovation, and lack of
preparation for influxes of immigrants are all serious concerns for central cities of the 21st century.
T
Western cities are beginning to experience similar socioeconomic hardship conditions that
older cities in the Northeast and Midwest regions have already had to confront. There is a
significant need to address crowded housing in the central cities of the West.
Cities in the Northeast have a number of factors fueling hardship conditions. Our analysis
demonstrates the particular significance of improving levels of education. In addition to the low
rate in the Northeast of adults with a high school education or better, the region has comparatively a
high number of residents, especially children, living below the poverty level.
This analysis also demonstrates — consistent with a robust though not always empirical
literature — that regionalism matters. Cities able to connect with, and capture, engines of growth
frequently at or beyond their established periphery tend to fare better over time, as measured by our
Intercity Hardship Index. Future papers will take up the question of metropolitan hardship directly,
comparing those areas that have greater versus lower disparity between their central city and
surrounding suburbs. But first, in the next paper of this series, we will investigate how cities in the
most populated metropolitan areas in America have been impacted by poverty concentration.
41
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
Lisa M. Montiel, Richard P. Nathan, and David J. Wright
Appendix A: Selected Characteristics of Cities
Percent of Population
2000 African
Percent of Families in
in 2000 older than 25
American with White
2000 Living Below
with less than a High
Poverty
Dissimilarity2
School Education
Year City
Incorporated
1970-2000 Percent
Change in Central
City Population
Akron
1836
-21.2%
55.4
20.0
14.0
Albuquerque
1885
84.1%
31.7
14.1
10.0
Allentown
1838
-2.6%
31.2
27.3
14.6
Anaheim
1876
96.4%
26.9
30.7
10.4
Arlington TX
1884
267.0%
32.8
15.1
7.3
Atlanta
1847
-16.2%
81.6
23.1
21.3
Austin
1839
160.6%
58.0
16.6
9.1
Bakersfield
1873
255.9%
43.3
24.1
14.6
Baltimore
1796
-28.1%
71.2
31.6
18.8
Baton Rouge
1822
37.3%
72.3
19.9
18.0
Birmingham
1822
-19.2%
61.9
24.5
20.9
Boston
1822
-8.1%
70.4
21.1
15.3
Buffalo
1832
-36.8%
69.5
25.4
23.0
Charlotte
1768
124.8%
56.9
15.1
7.8
Chicago
1837
-14.0%
85.2
28.2
16.6
Cincinnati
1819
-26.9%
59.7
23.3
18.2
Cleveland
1836
-36.3%
78.0
31.0
22.9
Columbus
1834
31.9%
57.6
16.2
10.8
Central City
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
42
An Update on Urban Hardship
43
Dallas
1872
40.7%
66.1
29.6
14.9
Dayton
1841
-31.8%
76.2
24.9
18.2
Denver
1861
7.8%
63.0
21.1
10.6
Detroit
1815
-37.1%
60.1
30.4
21.7
El Paso
1873
75.1%
34.4
31.4
19.0
Fort Lauderdale
1911
9.0%
77.7
21.0
13.8
Fort Worth
1873
36.1%
57.9
27.2
12.7
Fresno
1885
157.4%
42.8
30.9
20.5
Gary
1909
-41.4%
60.8
27.3
22.2
Grand Rapids
1850
0.1%
52.1
22.0
11.9
Greensboro
1808
55.0%
57.4
15.7
8.6
Hartford
1784
-23.1%
61.1
39.2
28.2
Honolulu
1907
14.4%
40.3
16.6
7.9
Houston
1837
58.6%
71.4
29.6
16.0
Indianapolis
1825
5.1%
62.1
18.7
9.1
Jacksonville
1822
42.0%
50.4
17.7
9.4
Jersey City
1838
-7.9%
56.7
27.4
16.4
Kansas City MO
1853
-13.0%
66.7
17.5
11.1
Knoxville
1815
-0.5%
55.0
21.6
14.4
Las Vegas
1905
280.7%
38.3
21.5
8.6
Little Rock
1835
38.6%
58.9
14.1
11.1
Los Angeles
1835
31.2%
71.5
33.4
18.3
Louisville
1828
-29.1%
70.0
23.9
17.9
Memphis
1826
4.2%
65.1
23.6
17.2
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
Lisa M. Montiel, Richard P. Nathan, and David J. Wright
Mesa
1883
532.0%
28.2
15.3
6.2
Miami
1896
8.3%
75.1
47.3
23.5
Milwaukee
1846
-16.8%
69.0
25.2
17.4
Minneapolis
1867
-12.0%
54.0
15.0
11.9
Nashville-Davidson
1848
21.8%
54.0
18.9
10.2
New Orleans
1852
-18.3%
65.9
25.3
23.7
1.4%
83.5
27.7
18.5
1
New York City
1898
Newark
1836
-28.5%
77.8
42.1
25.5
Newport News
1886
30.4%
42.4
15.5
11.3
Norfolk
1845
-23.9%
52.8
21.6
15.5
Oakland
1852
10.5%
57.2
26.1
16.2
Oklahoma City
1889
38.1%
53.9
18.7
12.4
Omaha
1857
12.3%
65.4
14.0
7.8
Orlando
1875
87.9%
70.6
17.8
13.3
Philadelphia
1789
-22.1%
76.7
28.8
18.4
Phoenix
1881
127.1%
49.4
23.4
11.5
Pittsburgh
1816
-35.7%
66.5
18.7
15.0
Portland
1851
38.3%
51.8
14.3
8.5
Providence
1832
-3.1%
41.7
34.2
23.9
Raleigh
1792
127.5%
53.8
11.5
7.1
Richmond
1782
-20.8%
63.5
24.8
17.1
Rochester
1834
-25.8%
53.8
27.0
23.4
Sacramento
1850
60.0%
44.9
22.7
15.3
Salt Lake City
1851
3.2%
38.4
16.6
10.4
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
44
An Update on Urban Hardship
San Antonio
1852
75.0%
48.0
24.9
14.0
San Diego
1850
75.6%
60.7
17.2
10.6
San Francisco
1856
8.5%
57.0
18.8
7.8
San Jose
1850
100.5%
39.4
21.7
6.0
Santa Ana
1886
115.5%
27.2
56.8
16.1
Seattle
1865
6.1%
57.7
10.5
6.9
Springfield
1852
-7.2%
46.5
26.6
19.3
St. Louis
1823
-44.0%
68.5
28.7
20.8
St. Paul
1849
-7.4%
43.1
16.2
11.7
St. Petersburg
1903
14.6%
73.4
18.1
9.2
Syracuse
1848
-25.3%
54.3
23.8
21.7
Tacoma
1884
25.0%
33.9
16.4
11.4
Tampa
1855
9.3%
61.0
22.9
14.0
Toledo
1837
-18.3%
63.2
20.3
14.2
Tucson
1929
85.1%
29.4
19.6
13.7
Tulsa
1898
18.5%
56.0
15.6
10.9
Virginia Beach
1963
147.1%
35.5
9.6
5.1
Washington
1802
-24.4%
79.9
22.2
16.7
Wichita
1886
24.4%
54.2
16.2
8.4
Youngstown
1867
-41.3%
62.4
26.8
20.4
1
Year NYC incorporated with boroughs.
The dissimilarity index is a measure of the evenness or unevenness with which African Americans and Whites are spread across census tracts
comprising a city. It reflects the percentage of African Americans who would have to move to another census tract so that their share of population
in each census tract comprising a given city would be the same as that for the city as a whole. Dissimilarity index values range from 0, indicating
complete residential integration, to 100, indicating complete residential segregation. Indices are drawn from the Lewis Mumford Center of the
University at Albany, State University of New York; data can be found at http://mumford1.dyndns.org/cen2000/WholePop/Wpsegdata.htm.
2
45
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
Lisa M. Montiel, Richard P. Nathan, and David J. Wright
Appendix B: Intercity Hardship Scores and Rankings, 1970-2000
Central City
1970 Index
1980 Index
1990 Index
2000 Index
1970 Rank
1980 Rank
1990 Rank
2000 Rank
Akron
44.3
40.2
33.5
31.6
30
25
33
40
Allentown
29.2
33.4
29.5
39.1
51
34
40
30
Atlanta
49.1
46.3
42.3
42.5
23
21
21
25
Baltimore
61.9
55.6
46.2
47.3
6
9
15
17
Birmingham
61.6
51.4
39.9
49.9
8
12
23
13
Boston
45.4
34.8
37.9
38.5
29
31
24
31
Buffalo
58.6
54.4
45.4
51.8
11
10
17
8
Chicago
49.3
50.3
53.1
51.0
22
14
9
11
Cincinnati
54.1
44.5
37.4
33.3
15
22
25
36
Cleveland
61.4
55.9
55.3
58.1
9
8
8
7
Columbus
34.8
24.2
17.2
18.5
46
42
52
53
Dallas
33.1
20.6
32.1
44.7
47
46
35
23
Dayton
47.6
47.8
41.6
40.6
24
18
22
27
Denver
29.7
17.1
22.3
26.1
50
53
49
45
Detroit
59.0
65.1
69.8
60.4
10
3
3
6
Fort Lauderdale
23.0
17.8
28.9
27.1
55
51
41
43
Fort Worth
43.4
31.7
34.4
39.4
33
37
30
29
Gary
70.3
66.7
68.0
62.9
4
2
4
4
Grand Rapids
50.1
38.6
32.8
32.2
21
26
34
38
Greensboro
28.4
20.0
6.8
17.7
53
47
54
54
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
46
An Update on Urban Hardship
Hartford
56.5
63.0
62.4
73.1
14
4
5
3
Houston
37.8
19.8
31.9
45.5
42
48
36
21
Indianapolis
40.4
30.5
18.8
22.7
37
38
51
51
Jersey City
57.2
62.9
48.9
49.5
12
5
13
14
Kansas City
38.9
28.2
24.5
26.5
39
39
47
44
Los Angeles
38.4
34.7
50.9
61.0
40
32
11
5
Louisville
56.6
46.9
35.0
32.0
13
20
29
39
Miami
61.9
61.5
80.9
83.5
5
6
1
1
Milwaukee
43.8
35.5
42.4
51.6
32
29
20
9
Minneapolis
29.8
16.3
23.1
25.5
49
54
48
47
New Orleans
73.9
49.3
56.5
48.8
3
15
6
16
New York City
45.7
48.5
42.9
51.3
28
17
19
10
Newark
86.9
86.1
76.9
73.9
1
1
2
2
Norfolk
44.0
35.4
29.8
41.7
31
30
39
26
Oklahoma City
35.0
19.0
27.2
23.9
44
49
44
48
Omaha
35.0
23.8
16.6
19.1
45
43
53
52
Philadelphia
51.0
49.1
46.1
49.4
18
16
16
15
Phoenix
40.2
25.7
30.5
27.5
38
41
37
42
Pittsburgh
47.3
33.0
28.3
32.9
26
36
42
37
Portland
37.9
21.6
19.5
22.7
41
45
50
50
Providence
53.0
50.7
48.7
50.4
16
13
14
12
Richmond
46.2
33.5
28.0
34.4
27
33
43
34
Rochester
47.5
44.0
43.9
47.2
25
23
18
18
Sacramento
50.4
33.2
35.4
40.4
19
35
27
28
47
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
Lisa M. Montiel, Richard P. Nathan, and David J. Wright
Salt Lake City
37.2
26.8
25.4
26.0
43
40
46
46
San Diego
32.8
17.7
26.8
30.3
48
52
45
41
San Francisco
28.5
18.2
30.5
23.9
52
50
38
49
San Jose
41.2
21.9
35.2
37.0
35
44
28
32
Seattle
28.1
7.5
6.2
9.1
54
55
55
55
Springfield
51.8
47.3
49.5
46.3
17
19
12
20
St. Louis
77.2
60.1
51.6
46.9
2
7
10
19
Syracuse
41.4
37.2
34.0
43.4
34
28
31
24
Tampa
50.3
38.0
33.7
36.9
20
27
32
33
Toledo
41.1
40.3
37.3
34.2
36
24
26
35
Youngstown
61.6
53.8
55.6
45.3
7
11
7
22
Average Index Score
46.9
38.9
38.4
40.5
1
The Intercity Hardship Index — based on the methodology used by Richard P. Nathan and Charles F. Adams, Jr. in “Understanding Urban
Hardship,” Political Science Quarterly 91 (Spring 1976): 47-62 — calculated an overall measure of hardship based on the average of six,
equally-weighted, component variables: unemployment, dependency, education, income level, crowded housing, and poverty. Standardized
values for each of these component variables are calculated by use of a formula that computes ratios of where each city falls on a given variable
compared to the highest and lowest values on that same variable from among those cities included in the analysis. Hardship scores and rankings are
therefore relative, applying to a specific group of cities studied for a given period. The analysis of city scores and rankings on hardship from 1970 to
2000, which is shown in this Appendix and is discussed in Sections IV and V of the paper, is based only on those 55 cities that were in the original study by
Nathan and Adams. Values for another 31 cities that met the criteria for inclusion as of 1990, but which were not part of the original study, are not
included. Consequently, the index values and rankings for individual cities that are shown on this table for 1990 and 2000 are different from the index
scores and rankings of cities shown in Appendix C and in Sections I, II, and III of the paper, which are based on values among the full sample of 86 cities
we have analyzed for 1990 and 2000.
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
48
An Update on Urban Hardship
Appendix C:
Rankings and Components of Intercity Hardship Index Scores, 1990-2000 1
1990
Central City
1990
1990 Standardized Subcomponents
Index Rank Unemployment Housing
2000
Dependents
Income
Poverty
2000
2000 Standardized Subcomponents
Education Index Rank Unemployment Housing Dependents
Income
Poverty
Education
Akron
37.1
40
39.0
0.0
67.7
43.5
35.2
37.5
31.4
51
32.5
0.0
73.0
49.0
11.5
22.1
Albuquerque
26.9
68
27.1
8.8
48.0
45.3
22.1
10.1
21.7
72
18.2
7.2
56.2
33.1
6.0
9.5
Allentown
33.5
50
23.1
4.4
64.6
46.8
16.1
45.9
37.2
35
26.8
5.0
78.5
59.3
16.4
37.5
Anaheim
38.7
35
24.7
37.7
35.0
75.4
28.1
31.2
46.4
16
21.1
49.6
68.8
79.2
15.1
44.8
Arlington TX
12.9
84
22.7
8.9
22.4
19.0
3.9
0.5
19.2
78
8.0
14.6
43.1
30.1
7.8
11.6
Atlanta
44.6
25
42.9
13.5
43.7
42.8
79.5
44.9
39.7
31
98.0
11.0
29.5
31.6
39.6
28.6
Austin
22.7
77
29.7
13.7
13.3
40.3
25.3
14.0
16.1
83
8.2
14.4
9.9
36.7
12.4
14.8
Bakersfield
38.7
34
31.9
16.5
71.7
52.9
34.1
25.3
41.1
29
42.8
20.2
88.4
37.2
27.3
30.8
Baltimore
48.5
19
41.1
7.9
60.3
62.4
51.7
67.7
44.7
21
53.1
5.6
66.7
61.3
34.7
46.7
Baton Rouge
38.3
37
43.8
9.8
49.0
47.9
51.7
27.8
33.3
43
38.8
7.4
53.6
21.4
56.9
21.7
Birmingham
42.6
28
40.2
6.7
73.1
48.1
41.0
46.3
48.0
13
57.6
5.0
71.1
49.8
73.0
31.6
Boston
40.8
29
40.7
13.6
14.0
74.8
71.0
30.5
35.9
37
30.6
11.3
16.3
66.2
66.9
24.3
Buffalo
47.8
22
54.1
1.5
66.9
59.6
53.4
51.3
50.1
10
72.2
2.6
79.0
52.2
61.0
33.4
Charlotte
13.3
81
12.8
4.3
35.1
0.0
10.1
17.4
17.4
81
21.0
6.9
37.2
15.8
11.7
11.6
Chicago
53.8
10
59.7
19.4
58.5
67.3
63.6
54.3
46.7
14
55.4
17.0
57.2
61.1
50.2
39.4
Cincinnati
40.4
31
32.8
6.6
65.3
42.4
49.9
45.5
32.5
48
31.0
2.2
59.5
30.1
43.0
29.0
Cleveland
56.6
9
66.1
4.0
77.3
62.2
57.8
72.4
55.8
7
59.1
2.4
86.6
71.3
69.9
45.4
Columbus
22.5
78
24.9
2.0
27.6
34.4
23.3
23.0
18.6
79
13.2
1.8
34.5
37.5
10.6
14.1
Dallas
34.7
45
37.8
22.3
38.7
33.4
40.0
36.0
38.9
34
26.6
27.3
48.2
51.5
37.4
42.4
49
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
Lisa M. Montiel, Richard P. Nathan, and David J. Wright
Dayton
44.3
26
45.9
4.2
66.3
53.8
46.9
48.7
39.4
33
44.6
1.3
60.9
55.5
41.9
32.4
Denver
26.7
69
30.1
6.8
44.6
27.5
29.3
21.8
23.9
65
19.0
12.0
34.9
40.9
12.3
24.4
Detroit
69.0
4
100.0
10.3
81.3
73.7
84.3
64.0
56.6
6
79.9
11.2
90.0
72.7
41.8
44.0
El Paso
51.7
13
46.4
33.4
74.7
55.8
43.7
56.1
49.5
11
38.7
22.9
90.7
58.7
39.6
46.3
Fort Lauderdale 32.2
57
25.8
16.9
51.4
24.6
40.1
34.2
24.9
61
19.6
13.5
45.2
22.3
24.7
24.2
Fort Worth
37.0
41
34.5
16.9
57.9
42.5
29.7
40.5
35.6
38
19.0
17.8
65.3
48.2
26.3
37.2
Fresno
52.6
12
36.9
31.6
82.3
62.7
54.8
47.0
54.4
8
62.7
31.0
92.6
51.4
43.7
45.2
Gary
67.1
5
84.6
14.6
90.7
78.1
77.0
57.5
59.4
5
88.0
10.7
97.1
73.0
49.8
37.5
Grand Rapids
36.2
44
32.9
3.0
75.4
50.6
26.5
28.6
30.8
54
24.2
6.0
71.2
46.7
10.6
26.4
Greensboro
13.2
82
14.6
1.9
30.9
2.0
8.0
21.7
17.5
80
28.5
4.4
42.6
15.3
1.6
12.9
Hartford
62.6
6
51.6
19.2
53.3
80.8
100.0
70.7
67.1
3
99.3
17.4
78.4
82.9
61.8
62.6
Honolulu
25.7
71
0.0
39.8
41.0
41.7
10.5
21.1
32.7
45
13.2
29.2
61.3
55.1
22.6
14.9
Houston
34.1
47
42.4
28.0
40.6
16.7
33.7
43.4
39.6
32
33.7
28.4
52.5
43.0
37.5
42.4
Indianapolis
23.8
75
22.6
2.4
53.9
21.2
14.1
28.7
22.6
69
18.6
2.6
58.0
22.5
14.4
19.4
Jacksonville
27.0
67
19.9
7.7
51.8
36.9
17.1
28.7
25.8
60
10.2
6.2
60.1
33.5
27.9
17.2
Jersey City
49.6
18
58.7
27.3
42.8
61.5
51.9
55.2
44.4
23
54.4
22.6
43.8
67.9
39.8
37.8
Kansas City
28.6
65
33.7
4.0
57.5
32.1
21.7
22.8
26.1
58
24.2
4.3
60.8
31.7
18.7
16.8
Knoxville
28.8
64
26.3
1.2
42.5
32.7
27.3
42.6
22.3
70
20.7
0.3
41.7
24.3
21.2
25.4
Las Vegas
33.0
52
30.8
17.7
41.7
58.2
20.9
29.0
30.6
55
27.9
16.6
62.2
46.0
5.6
25.3
Little Rock
21.1
80
18.6
3.6
55.6
16.3
17.7
15.0
17.1
82
20.8
3.1
57.0
0.0
11.9
9.6
Los Angeles
49.9
17
28.1
56.8
38.9
62.8
60.7
52.0
51.0
9
45.7
48.9
55.2
59.5
46.5
50.3
Louisville
38.3
36
33.5
4.9
72.0
33.8
34.3
51.5
31.1
52
29.1
2.7
69.2
31.2
24.0
30.4
Memphis
40.7
30
40.8
10.9
66.0
43.0
39.9
43.5
43.4
26
43.0
8.9
72.2
39.8
66.6
29.8
Mesa
30.5
60
17.5
10.9
77.3
57.1
12.2
7.9
19.8
76
1.8
11.4
83.6
10.0
0.0
12.2
Miami
76.5
1
52.7
65.7
69.9
81.9
88.8
99.9
71.6
2
50.5
50.3
72.1
76.9
100.0
79.9
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
50
An Update on Urban Hardship
Milwaukee
44.7
24
42.5
7.5
71.1
59.3
46.8
40.9
49.1
12
52.3
8.3
76.9
62.1
61.8
33.0
Minneapolis
27.6
66
30.4
5.0
31.8
45.7
38.9
13.4
24.2
63
24.2
10.3
22.0
40.8
36.1
11.5
NashvilleDavidson
23.3
76
17.9
2.5
36.6
32.4
19.3
31.3
19.8
75
15.0
4.0
35.4
35.4
9.7
19.6
New Orleans
56.8
8
59.5
17.8
75.2
59.9
79.0
49.2
45.9
18
44.0
11.5
69.5
40.9
76.2
33.3
New York City
44.1
27
40.9
28.9
47.3
45.7
53.5
48.7
45.6
19
45.0
26.2
53.1
67.5
43.2
38.4
Newark
74.6
2
78.5
33.9
58.8
92.8
92.8
91.1
66.6
4
90.5
22.8
61.6
94.7
61.0
68.8
Newport News
30.2
61
25.4
5.7
52.0
50.1
26.9
21.4
31.9
50
12.3
4.4
64.0
48.0
50.0
12.5
Norfolk
33.6
48
25.8
11.0
31.8
57.9
37.0
37.9
39.8
30
32.2
7.9
47.3
50.5
75.2
25.5
Oakland
50.9
15
44.9
29.0
53.4
72.3
72.2
33.7
42.6
27
39.2
29.5
49.9
69.1
32.9
34.9
Oklahoma City
31.0
59
32.1
7.1
57.8
39.9
24.7
24.2
23.3
67
11.4
6.4
60.9
17.8
23.8
19.2
Omaha
21.7
79
14.6
1.3
61.7
25.8
13.7
13.4
19.3
77
5.8
3.6
62.9
28.6
5.8
9.4
Orlando
24.9
72
15.9
10.2
24.8
45.2
28.6
24.5
23.7
66
12.6
12.4
37.5
47.0
15.1
17.4
Philadelphia
48.2
21
41.8
8.4
66.5
65.8
48.3
58.6
46.6
15
53.7
7.2
75.7
73.5
29.0
40.6
Phoenix
33.5
49
30.5
15.5
51.9
53.3
26.7
23.0
24.0
64
17.2
21.8
60.2
0.6
14.7
29.2
Pittsburgh
32.5
53
35.5
0.9
58.3
30.2
31.6
38.5
32.7
46
50.7
0.0
55.9
39.1
31.1
19.3
Portland
24.1
74
24.8
4.7
50.1
34.8
17.8
12.6
22.0
71
29.3
7.0
32.3
43.5
10.0
10.0
Providence
50.5
16
41.1
11.9
56.8
70.6
60.1
62.5
46.1
17
42.7
13.4
58.2
70.8
39.7
52.2
Raleigh
6.3
86
10.7
3.4
0.0
10.9
9.7
3.6
10.9
85
19.0
4.8
9.8
24.0
3.8
3.9
Richmond
32.4
55
23.8
3.6
48.1
30.1
39.3
49.3
33.0
44
37.0
3.8
49.4
42.7
33.1
32.2
Rochester
46.6
23
41.3
3.4
59.4
64.0
63.7
47.5
45.2
20
58.2
3.5
67.1
63.7
42.1
36.8
Sacramento
37.7
38
32.2
18.2
61.0
49.9
37.4
27.4
36.7
36
32.7
18.9
71.2
51.4
18.3
27.7
Salt Lake City
29.3
63
19.6
7.2
69.2
42.4
25.0
12.3
24.2
62
21.2
12.8
44.5
44.1
7.5
14.9
San Antonio
48.5
20
43.0
24.2
68.4
60.9
47.6
46.7
33.9
40
18.4
17.4
72.9
45.8
16.4
32.5
San Diego
29.8
62
23.1
23.9
30.7
55.7
31.1
14.2
26.9
57
18.3
21.9
43.1
52.4
9.3
16.1
San Francisco
33.4
51
25.4
24.8
14.5
64.3
46.3
24.7
20.2
74
6.9
21.7
3.8
64.4
5.0
19.5
51
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
Lisa M. Montiel, Richard P. Nathan, and David J. Wright
San Jose
36.8
43
23.9
35.7
33.8
74.8
25.5
26.8
31.0
53
4.1
33.9
44.4
75.0
2.8
25.6
Santa Ana
74.6
3
47.7
99.9
46.7
100.0
58.4
94.7
73.7
1
32.8
100.0
76.6
100.0
32.9
99.9
Seattle
12.3
85
16.1
6.3
20.1
15.8
11.6
3.9
9.2
86
15.0
6.1
0.0
22.3
10.3
2.0
Springfield
51.2
14
42.4
7.0
76.4
74.9
60.9
45.5
44.0
25
36.5
6.8
87.8
70.7
26.2
36.1
St. Louis
52.9
11
51.5
10.2
83.7
58.4
51.0
62.4
44.5
22
64.8
6.0
76.2
45.6
34.0
40.5
St. Paul
32.5
54
24.3
7.1
61.1
52.9
32.5
17.0
32.7
47
20.1
11.4
63.5
51.7
35.3
14.1
St. Petersburg
32.1
58
13.2
4.8
83.9
40.8
18.0
32.0
26.0
59
9.4
4.4
73.8
39.7
10.8
18.1
Syracuse
37.6
39
32.7
3.2
55.1
53.6
39.5
41.7
42.0
28
44.1
2.8
65.9
60.9
48.3
30.1
Tacoma
32.3
56
28.5
8.6
69.4
42.4
23.5
21.6
32.1
49
35.8
8.7
64.4
46.7
22.3
14.4
Tampa
36.9
42
25.9
11.4
56.5
47.0
37.2
43.0
34.4
39
43.9
11.8
61.3
35.7
25.6
28.3
Toledo
40.3
32
47.4
1.0
70.2
51.4
35.4
36.7
33.9
41
35.4
0.6
75.8
42.8
25.8
22.7
Tucson
40.0
33
36.7
15.4
53.5
70.4
40.7
23.2
28.3
56
15.3
14.2
56.5
34.3
28.5
21.2
Tulsa
24.4
73
24.4
3.6
53.3
27.2
23.5
14.2
20.5
73
15.1
5.4
63.4
16.0
10.6
12.6
Virginia Beach
13.1
83
11.9
1.6
33.3
31.7
0.0
0.1
15.3
84
0.0
2.1
53.0
24.4
12.9
0.0
Washington
34.3
46
31.0
17.6
22.8
46.7
50.7
36.8
33.5
42
64.4
14.4
29.9
37.9
27.7
26.6
Wichita
26.2
70
24.1
5.8
65.6
30.5
15.8
15.2
22.7
68
14.8
4.8
72.9
22.5
7.2
14.0
Youngstown
56.8
7
63.9
0.4
100.0
67.1
54.0
55.4
44.2
24
48.7
0.1
100.0
50.8
29.3
36.4
AVERAGE
37.7
34.8
13.9
53.7
48.7
38.9
36.4
35.0
34.0
13.1
58.4
46.3
30.0
28.4
1 The Intercity Hardship Index — based on the methodology used by Richard P. Nathan and Charles F. Adams, Jr. in “Understanding Urban Hardship,” Political Science Quarterly 91 (Spring
1976): 47-62 — calculates an overall measure of hardship based on the average of six, equally-weighted, component variables: unemployment, dependency, education, income level, crowded
housing, and poverty. Standardized values for each of these component variables are calculated by use of a formula that computes ratios of where each city falls on a given variable compared to the
highest and lowest values on that same variable from among those cities included in the analysis. Hardship scores and rankings are therefore relative, applying to a specific group of cities studied
for a given period. The scores and rankings on hardship shown in this Appendix are based on values among the full sample of 86 cities we have analyzed for 1990 and 2000. Consequently, they are
different from the index scores and rankings of cities shown in Appendix B and in Sections IV and V of the paper, which are based only on those 55 cities that were in the original study by Nathan
and Adams.
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
52
An Update on Urban Hardship
NOTES
1
The selection of cities involved two decision rules. Only cities within metropolitan areas with populations greater than 480,000 in 1990 were included. Only cities comprising more than 11 percent and less
than 89 percent of their metropolitan area’s population were included. The result of these decision
rules yielded a group including all 55 cities from the original analysis by Nathan and Adams on urban
hardship in 1970 and 1980, plus 31other cities for which we offer data for 1990 and 2000. For the underlying work by Nathan and Adams see: Richard P. Nathan and Charles F. Adams, Jr., “Four Perspectives on Urban Hardship,” Political Science Quarterly 104 (Number 3, 1989): 483-508, and
“Understanding Central City Hardship,” Political Science Quarterly 91 (Spring 1976): 47-62. See also
Richard P. Nathan, A New Agenda For Cities, Ohio Municipal League, 1992.
2
The same formulation as the original study was used to calculate the Intercity Hardship Index (see Appendix 1 in Nathan and Adams 1989):
X = ((Y-Ymin)/(Ymax — Ymin))*100
where: X = standardized value of component variable (for example, unemployment rate) for each city
to be computed.
Y = unstandardized value of component variable for each city.
Ymin = the minimum value for Y across all cities.
Ymax = the maximum value for Y across all cities.
The (Ymax — Ymin ) part of the formula was reversed to (Ymin — Ymax ) for the calculation of Income
Level so that the resulting ratio would be interpreted consistently with the other ratios — a higher value
indicating higher hardship. The formula standardizes each of the component variables so that they are
all given equal weight in the composite Intercity Hardship Index. The Index represents the average of
the standardized ratios of all six component variables. The Intercity Hardship Index ranges from 0 to
100 with a higher number indicating greater hardship. Adjustments were made to reflect regional
cost-of-living differences in order to compare economic conditions between cities in different parts of
the country. Because the Bureau of Labor Statistics discontinued the Family Budget Index Nathan and
Adams used for this purpose in their original analysis, adjustments were made using the Department of
Housing and Urban Development’s Fair Market Rents (FMR), defined as the 40th percentile rent for a
two bedroom home, and established for each of the cities in the study. The FMRs were indexed and the
index was applied at 100 percent as an adjustment to the income variable (which Nathan and Adams
adjusted by the “intermediate level of living” of the BLS Family Budget Index), and at 67 percent as
the poverty adjustment (which Nathan and Adams adjusted by the “lower level of living” of the BLS
Family Budget Index).
3
This section, and the one that follows which tracks changes in hardship from 1970 to 2000, encompasses analyses and comparisons among 55 cities from Nathan and Adams, for which new data is
added for 1990 and 2000. Not included are 31 cities that meet population-size criteria for inclusion as
of 1990, but which were not incorporated in the original analysis.
4
The Intercity Hardship Index — based on the methodology originated by Nathan and Adams – employs standardized values for component variables in a formula, shown in footnote 2 above, that computes ratios of where each city falls on a given variable compared to the highest and lowest values on
that same variable from among a given set of cities included in the analysis. Hardship scores and rankings are therefore relative, applying to a specific group of cities studied for a given period. The analysis
of city scores and rankings on hardship from 1970 to 2000, which is discussed in this Section and
shown in Appendix B, is based only on those 55 cities that were in the original study by Nathan and
Adams. Values for another 31 cities that met the criteria for inclusion as of 1990, but which were not
part of the original study, are not included in this set of calculations. Consequently, the index values
and rankings for individual cities in 2000 that are shown in this Section and Appendix B are different
(since they are based on analysis of the 55 cities meeting criteria for study) from the index scores and
rankings of cities in 2000 shown in Appendix C and in Sections I, II, and III of the paper (which are
based on calculations and analysis of the full set of 86 cities meeting the criteria for study in 1990 and
2000).
53
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
Lisa M. Montiel, Richard P. Nathan, and David J. Wright
5
See particularly David Rusk’s Cities Without Suburbs (Washington: Woodrow Wilson Center, 1993),
and his Inside Game/Outside Game (Washington: Brookings Institution Press, 1999). For a discussion
of the values of regionalism, the implications of fragmented governance, and practical lessons for regional approaches, see Gerald Benjamin and Richard P. Nathan, Regionalism and Realism: A Study of
Governments in the New York Metropolitan Area (Washington: Brookings Institution Press, 2001).
6
Pearson r = -0.277 with the correlation significant at the 0.05 level.
7
Pearson r = -0.22 with the correlation significant at the 0.05 level.
8
Spearman’s rho = 0.373, significant at the 0.01 level.
9
Pearson’s r = 0.240 with the correlation significant at the 0.05 level.
10
The city of Las Vegas represented an extreme outlier. Almost half (48.9 percent) of the housing in Las
Vegas was built since 1990, with the next highest city in the study being 28.9 percent). Consequently,
we omitted Las Vegas from the calculation of median values used to construct the distribution of cities
on age of housing, but include it among the cities shown in this distribution.
11
Pearson r = 0.284 with the correlation significant at the 0.01 level.
12
Pearson r = -0.451 with the correlation significant at the 0.01 level.
The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government — Urban & Metropolitan Studies
54
NONPROFIT
ORG.
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
ALBANY, N.Y.
PERMIT NO. 21
The
Nelson A.
Rockefeller
Institute
of
Government
The State University
of New York
411 State Street
Albany, New York 12203-1003